Is this a correct ruling?
 

Ground ball to F6, throw to F3 pulls F3 off the bag towards the plate. Batter-Runner avoids contact and goes past 1B without touching the bag. The B-R was able to keep both feet in the running lane. The official ruled that there was no interference. F3 then walks over and touches the bag before the B-R can return. The B-R is called out. Non-verbal appeal & no tag needed.

Agree so far kinda, say everybody in the world knows BR missed the bag. F3 with wide eyes, a knowing look, a grin and nod towards the bag from F3 might work as a non-verbal appeal. Then tag the bag or the runner (before he returns)

What if F3 was mute or spoke another language?

F3 stumbles onto the bag or stands on the bag in say a hidden ball trick, with no indication of an appeal, nothing.

Say the BR turned left (legally, without any attempt to 2nd)?
F3 thinking/reaching/begging that BR was going, runs out and tags him, without an appeal of a missed base, safe so far.

Did the umpire signal safe on the initial play at first?

It's an appeal play. It needs to be judged the same way as any other appeal play.

And, the umpire should make the same call on the initial play as he would have made had the runner touched the base. Maybe a "safe -off-the-bag" call, or maybe nothing (depending on just how bad the throw was)

Don't know why the BU would do anything other than signal SAFE ("ruled that there was no interference" is kind of fuzzy). If F3 walked over and touched 1b it would have to be clear to the BU that he is making an appeal of missed base, some kind of clue, say something, etc....

First... the ruling seems correct, assuming the appeal was obvious to the umpire (and it seems like it's obvious to me, but we're not there).

Second ... what does "ruled there was no interference" mean? A) What interference could there have possibly been for him to rule on and B) what did the umpire do or say to make you think that was what he was ruling on?

No problem with an obvious appeal, but I see nothing in the OP that says F3 was doing anything other than touching 1B in frustration.

My guess: He signalled Safe, which just so happens to be the same mechanic when there's a potential for interference but none is judged, so the OP assumed he was signalling for no interference.

Another possibility: He ruled there was no obstruction, and the OP mistakenly used the term "interference". But given the description of the play and the rule set you're playing under, obstruction was a possible call here.

I can see that, although I'm not sure how you're reading frustration from what he typed.

What matters (and I know you agree) is what is obvious to the umpire on the spot. If it's obvious he's appealing the miss, it's an out. If it's not obvious, the fielder needs to do something to make it obvious. And this is completely judgement on the part of the umpire on the spot.

I played the position. The feeling is awsh!t so you go touch anyhow as part of the self flagellation punishment.

Thanks
 

Thanks for the responses. I too thought that it needed to be more than an 'accidental appeal'.

"My bad" on using the term interference rather than obstruction, I know the difference and still used it incorrectly.